By Rob Roper
The Vermont legislature set up the 23-member Climate Council under the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA). The Council’s role was and is to come up with a plan for reducing Vermont’s greenhouse gas emissions to 26% below 2005 levels by 2025, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below by 2050. One controversial element in this discussion is what role biomass fuels (wood chips, methane from farm animal waste, etc.) should play, especially for electricity generation.
Opponents of allowing biomass to be counted as clean, “renewable” energy — and thus able generate valuable “carbon credits” under the proposed Clean Heat Standard bill rather than be obligated to buy them — is that burning anything creates CO2 and is therefore not “clean,” that the formulae that determine biomass to be clean and renewable are highly flawed and perhaps politically motivated, and incentivizing biomass production encourages agricultural practices that have negative environmental impacts beyond emissions. They charge that calling biomass “renewable” is really just a case of “greenwashing.”
Supporters of biomass options under the GWSA agree that it is not a perfect solution, but a necessary bridge between where we are now, burning mostly oil, natural gas, and coal to generate electricity, and a future that is entirely dominated by things like wind and solar.
To bring some resolution to this controversy, the Climate Council created a Biomass Task Group to come up with a recommended policy for the full Council to consider and, presumably, include in its recommendations to the legislature and agencies charged with carrying out GWSA policy for guidance as they do the work of meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets.
The Task Group did its job, and recommended in its draft report:
1. New electric-led generation biomass facilities in the State of Vermont should not be used.
2. The Ryegate and McNeil facilities should not be expanded to increase the currently permitted hourly output capacity, physically or otherwise. Furthermore, the facilities should strive to use less biomass overall than they do currently.
3. The Vermont Climate Council recommends that the State plan and prepare for the phase out of wood biomass electricity generation at the McNeil and Ryegate facilities and the phase up of other energy sources, complemented with other important actions such as efficiency and consumption reduction.
This recommendation, however, is not politically popular.
In Chittenden County, home to seven state senators and over 30 state representatives, including the Speaker of the House, Jill Krowinski (D-Burlington) and the Senate President Pro Tem, Philip Baruth (D/P-Chittenden), the McNeil plant is not just a powerful constituent, but also a critical component in supplying electricity to residents and businesses. Far from considering shutting it down, Burlington is in the process of a $40 million plus expansion of the McNeil plant, running steam pipes under the streets to the UVM Medical Center, and the Intervale, and University of Vermont — the Senate president’s employer.
If McNeil were shut down, it raises questions about how the Queen City and surrounding communities would keep their lights on. If McNeil’s biomass electricity generation were classified as non-renewable, and thus could neither be counted toward mandated renewable energy targets nor used to generate carbon or renewable energy “credits,” the electric bills of Burlington ratepayers would skyrocket.
Additionally, supplying wood chips for the McNeil and Ryegate plants is a financially stabilizing sideline for Vermont’s wood products industry, creating a critical market for what would otherwise be a waste product.
If the result of implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act — regardless of what the science says — were to mean causing an electricity shortage and price spike in our most populous city/county, negatively impacting powerful, politically favored entities such as Burlington Electric, Vermont Gas, and UVM, while pushing the forestry and wood products industry into an oppositional political alliance with small heating fuel dealers, the GWSA would more than likely cease to be a viable state policy.
As such, a formal recommendation by the full Council to shutter McNeil and scratch biomass off the list of acceptable fuels would be politically disastrous for the politicians who pushed it in the first place. So, the Biomass Task Force’s recommendation, has been repeatedly, month after month, blocked from coming before the full Climate Council for review or even discussion.
Frustration by those who worked on the report, such as Judy Dow, and those who supported the Task Group’s efforts has been simmering for months and came to a boil at the March 6 meeting of the Climate Council’s Steering Committee.
Cheryl Joy Lipton, a regular observer of Climate Council meetings, called the Council out during the public comment period: “A really big thing is the VCC [Climate Council] was supposed to discuss [the Biomass Task Group’s recommendations at the March meeting…. For many months it’s been put off. A really long time. They were supposed to be talked about in November. They were supposed to have been talked about in December, and then again in January. I can’t remember now all the different things that have happened to put them off, but when it happens over and over and over again, like four or five or six months, it starts to look not very good.”
The primary excuse for the delay in discussion has been the fact that multiple seats on the Climate Council were left unfilled by the Speaker of the House and it would be unfair to discuss a key issue without those voices represented. While there is merit to this argument, it raises the question if the Speaker’s lack of action was an intentional way to shut down discussion of the issue, at least during the legislative session. As it is now, the Biomass Task Group recommendations have been delayed again, won’t be taken up until April — if then — and the legislature adjourns in May.
Lipton’s comments also drew attention to the impact this delay is having on policy formation and implementation: “Two legislative sessions now have gone forth saying that the Vermont Climate Council is in favor of biomass and biofuels and nobody when only there has been recommendation against, but that has been suppressed,” she said. “But now, both last year and this year in the Clean Heat Standard and the Affordable Heat Act it’s been put forth as though the VCC is in favor of all this stuff. So, that’s not right to be happening. I think what’s going on is unethical…. I don’t think it looks very good.”
Annette Smith of Vermonters for a Clean Environment responded to my request for comment: “The fundamental issue of contention is how biomass emissions are accounted. Vermont does not include CO2 emissions from burning trees as part of GHG emissions accounting. However, data shows that the McNeil plant annually emits CO2 emissions equivalent to most of the passenger cars in Vermont. Since emission reduction is the only mandate contained in the GWSA, some of us are asking for an honest accounting that includes all CO2 emissions and doesn’t play games that exclude those emissions.”
But an honest accounting would mean a lot of the heavy political hitters who stand to profit by the dishonest accounting would be left out in the cold. An honest, public debate over this issue would expose the fact that this whole scheme isn’t so much about carbon reduction and saving the planet as it is about, to use Richard Cowart, author of the Clean Heat Standard’s colorful description, “diverting a river of money” into the pockets of the preferred people. So, discussion gets suppressed.
The Climate Council was supposed to provide political cover for lawmakers who didn’t want to take responsibility for policies the Council recommended. “We’re just doing what we’re told! Don’t blame us!” But at least some Council members didn’t get that memo. They think this whole thing is actually about saving the planet. Bless their hearts.
Rob Roper is a freelance writer who has been involved with Vermont politics and policy for over 20 years. This article reprinted with permission from Behind the Lines: Rob Roper on Vermont Politics, robertroper.substack.com
No one ever wants to talk about the recycling plans for all this junk.
The turbine blades are longer than a Boeing 747 and they are piling up- in Wyoming.
I love how Vermont feels they are saving the planet as they create mountains of crap that will be buried in Wyoming..
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-02-05/wind-turbine-blades-can-t-be-recycled-so-they-re-piling-up-in-landfills
All this “Earth Saving” that Vermont is doing is creating massive junk piles that other states get stuck with.. and this is aside from what it takes to make and maintain this stuff or to even process it.
It’s got to get to Wyoming piece by piece on trailer trucks, be cut up with diamond blade saws.. I mean this is insanity.
Anyone that thinks this is all a good idea has a screw loose.
This is not about saving the planet at all.. it’s about carrying out a scam, an agenda..
The people pushing this belong in JAIL. When you understand the complete situation from beginning to end.. it’s so bad they should go to jail for creating such a disaster as they brag about saving the planet.This is not only destructive, it’s FRAUD.
Take a look at these pictures and tell me how this is saving the planet.. and can you image the scale of what needs to get buried as they grow this?
This is criminal.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/03/07/wyoming-wants-to-fill-coal-mines-with-spent-wind-turbine-blades-but-feds-wont-ok-plan/
https://www.waste360.com/landfill/wind-turbine-blades-destined-landfill-wyoming
This is all you need to know: “….data shows that the McNeil plant annually emits CO2 emissions equivalent to most of the passenger cars in Vermont. ”
See? So what good is it to FORCE to all electric vehicles in VT, but then hoist that McNeil wood chip plant is “green”…when that plant emits all the Co2 from all gas cars in VT. So CO2 will remain the same?
The stupidity is absolutely amazing, how blind, arrogant “cult fixated” these people are. Get out while you can
McNeil and Ryegate, at less than 25% efficiency, waste the energy equivalent of 3 out of 4 trees.
At least 50% of these trees are clear cut in New York State, a raping of the forest.
Old trees sequester much more CO2 per acre than young trees.
These trees should have been left standing
McNeil and Ryegate should be shut down and replaced with a 200 MW, modern, gas-fired, combined-cycle, gas-turbine plant, that would be 60% efficient, and thus would have much less CO2/kWh
McNeil and Ryegate are the biggest source of CO2 in Vermont, BY FAR
The wood combustion gases contain the same harmful gases as those from coal
The ash particles in the combustion gases are less than one micron, one thousandth of a millimeter.
They enter your lungs and into your bloodstream, and will take up residence in your tissues forever.
These particles debilitate your lungs, especially of younger people.
These particles are invisible and are not caught by any air pollution control systems, which catch almost all of the bigger particles.
Stop whitewashing this evil.
Stop being hypocritical
Start being honest for once
The below table shows CO2 is a minor contributor regarding the greenhouse effect.
Clouds and water vapor are 3 to 5 times as much of a contributor.
The hysterical mania regarding CO2, largely because of subsidies, will cause hundreds of trillions of dollars to be spent throughout the world for decades, but will result in no measurable decrease in temperature.
More CO2 is a needed, rather than less
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-co2-no-life
Contribution to Greenhouse Effect
Water vapor, 39 to 62%
Clouds, 15 to 36%
Water vapor and clouds, 67 to 85%
CO2, 14 to 25%
All other GHGs, 5 to 9%
The much-touted, EPA PM2.5 standard is a huge load of crapola.
Those giant particles are easily caught by modern air pollution control systems.
Almost all of the particles of wood burning and coal burning power and heating plants are less than 1.0 micron, one thousands of a millimeter.
They are not caught, or partially caught, by modern pollution control systems
They are invisible, which is politically convenient, but, medically, they enter your lungs, and your bloodstream and will reside in your tissues forever.
These particles are toxic and will give you cancer, just as cigaret smoke
These particles are especially harmful for pregnant woman, young children, and already sickly people, and older people, because they decrease lung capacity, put more stress on your heart, etc.
By massively cutting trees for wood burning as a substitute for fossil fuels, CO2 emissions may not increase, but the green leaf plants that convert CO2 to O2 will be reduced thus changing one alleged problem into another.
“Supporters of biomass options under the GWSA agree that it is not a perfect solution, but a necessary bridge between where we are now, burning mostly oil, natural gas, and coal to generate electricity, and a future that is entirely dominated by things like wind and solar.”
Has anyone on the Council even estimated how far in the future when electricity generation is dominated by wind and solar? That’s actually a very easy question to answer if you look at current attempts to reach the same goals.
Countries like Germany which have gone all in for wind and solar, closing nuke and coal plants, are now reopening the shuttered plants due to a lack of stability and availability. This is greatly affecting the economic infrastructure and hence their standard of living.
The lesson learned is it is physically impossible to carry on a modern civilization without fossil or nuclear energy and it will continue that way for the foreseeable future.
It is truly unfortunate that we in Vermont will be made to suffer because of ignorance of this basic fact.
The whole solution to VT’s ability to generate it’s own electricity lies in a shuttered
complex in Vernon. Even our Rino governor has now admitted and proposed reopening the nuke plant with a modern reactor. Clean Cheap juice without ruining the VT landscape. We also have to change the terminology on Fossil Fuel and it’s not from dead dinosaurs but Naturally occurring and will never run out. Natural Fuels is a more truthful name.
Because of a purposely, biased Committee, that acts as a stacked deck of political benefit for the Party.
To hell with Vermonters, no matter how much they are struggling and complaining;
“WE ARE DOING IT FOR YOUR OWN GOOD”
In 2021, well before Ukraine, the EU bureaucracy ordained no more long-term natural gas contracts with Russia, because it looked bad from a green point of view.
That meant increased buying on the SPOT market, which sent natural gas prices through the roof
Russia delivers gas only under long-term contracts, per worldwide industry standard practice for decades.
In 2021, most of Europe had lots of clear skies but very little wind and rain and snow.
It had plenty of solar power during a few hours of the day, but not any at night!!!!
It had almost no wind power for months
Hydro plant reservoirs and rivers had low water levels,
Barge traffic on the Rhine River came to a near halt.
France, Switzerland, and Norway had to curtail hydro production.
Some nuclear plants in France had to shut down, because of a lack of cooling water.
Germany stopped the scheduled shutdown of its 3 remaining nuclear plants, and restarted retired coal plants.
Norway increased electric rates to 40 c/kWh
This meant all those bragged-about EVs became much more expensive to drive.
Total disaster in Europe, before Ukraine.
Then came Ukraine, the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe, BY FAR, which made all of the above worse and even more expensive.
Need to resolve what Biomass “includes” because at some point Vermonters will resort to burning lots of wood and wood pellet products when the Un-Affordable Heating Act becomes the enacted!
If the legislature’s are true believers that CO2 is causing a warming crisis they should not be including wood burning as a “green” energy. When you include the CO2 sequestration savings over 80 years for a new tree that might grow it’s shifty accounting.
None of this is required …. There is no crisis and CO2 is not the control knob of Earth’s atmosphere.